of any thing whereby damage is effected; or the placing any thing in the highway or road, by which a passenger was endangered; and those accruing from the damage, or theft of the master of a ship, tavern or inn, or his servants.

From the foregoing details, it is not difficult to discover that some of the most reasonable and just doctrines of the common law, as now prevailing in this country and in England, are derived from the brief, but accurate system we have been considering. Indeed, so close is the resemblance between portions of that system, and the principles regulating the action of assumpsit and case, that a student might well apply them, and commit no wrong upon the equities of the latter actions.

But there are other divisions of the jurisprudence of the present times, richly illuminated by the tenets of the civil law. Among those we may refer to the doctrine of trusts; the relation of tutor and pupil or guardian and ward; and the principles regulating the distribution of estates.

Trusts, by this law, were arranged in harmonious and perfect adaptations. They were termed fidei commissa, from fides and committo, and thus their name expressed their foundations to be those of confidence, honor and good faith. These, previous to the reign of Augustus, rested, for their observance upon the honor of the trustee, and could not be constrained by the law. But that Emperor, as the Institutes express, "moved by compassion for some, and detestation for others," caused them to be enforced, as reasonable and just objects of the law and a Prætor was afterwards appointed, known as the fidei commissarius, whose power and authority were confined to trusts.

We hope not to incur the reproach of adopting mere fancies in tracing to this station, the equity jurisdiction if not the name of the Chancellor. A similarity of duties in dispensing justice, in such manner as to bend the rigorous elements of the law, and to reach the conscience of the party, justify the supposition.

Trusts, under the civil law, were generally connected with estates. If a testator wished one, incapable of taking directly from him, to enjoy an inheritance or legacy, he bequeathed it, in trust, to a person qualified to receive it. From this relation grew up most of the principles treated of in the institutes under this head; but their authority, as rules of equity

and good conscience, cover a large space in the Chancery Courts of our own day, and are founded upon the justest conceptions of natural law.

The rights and obligations of guardian and ward, were also excellently adjusted under the civil authority of Rome. Guardians were of two classes under that law, tutors, who were entrusted with the person of a pupil and curators, who had the charge of his estate. Tutors, when appointed by the testament of the parent, were termed testamentary tutors; when by the law, legal tutors, and when by the proper magistrates, dative tutors. The Prætors were obliged to see that tutors and curators gave proper security for the safety and indemnity of the pupil. This rule did not apply to the case of a testamentary tutor.

The duty of a tutor or curator consisted in guarding, with the diligence of a parent, the property and person of the pupil; and in educating him suitably to his station in life. He was not authorized to sell the property of the pupil without the decree of the magistrate; nor purchase it privately. He was compelled to place his property in a position to produce profit; and was bound for wanton loss. He was protected against the act of the pupil by the most wise regulations. The latter could, legally, perform nothing not authorized and approved by the tutor. He could receive, but not give, and others could bind themselves to him, but he could not be bound himself.

The rules of the civil law, as contained in the 118th novel, providing for the descent of estates, were considered so worthy of admiration, as to be adopted as the basis of the English statute of distinctions. We say this, aware of the controversy which affects the assertion; but consider the authority of Lord Hardwicke, Dr. Harris, Dr. Irving and Professor Brown as conclusive of the point. Indeed, the language, arrangement and inspection of the acknowledged truth, that the English statute was penned by a celebrated civilian, are ample attestations of the fact.

We proceed to sketch the most remarkable rules, of descent, established by this law.

1. The descendant of an intestate, of either sex or degrce, whether deriving his descent from the male or female line, was preferred to ascendants and collaterals.

2. If the deceased was or was not under paternal authority, his children of either sex or degree, were preferred in suc

cession to the parents of the deceased, except as to those things, which children, under the laws, acquired for their parents.

3. If the deceased left no descendants, a surviving father, mother, grand-father, great-grand-father, &c. was preferred to all collateral relations, except brothers of the whole blood to the deceased. If many ascendants were living, those were preferred in the nearest degrees, whether male or female, paternal or maternal; and the inheritance was divided between those concurring in degree.

4. If there were father and mother, and brothers and sisters of the whole blood, each of these collaterals took an equal portion of the estate with each of the ascendants.

5. In case the deceased left neither descendants nor ascendants, the inheritance descended to the brothers and sisters of the whole blood.

6. On a failure of brothers and sisters of the whole blood, brothers and sisters by the same father only, or by the same mother were called to the inheritance.

7. If the deceased left brothers, and nephews by a deceased brother or sister, these nephews succeeded with the uncles and aunts of the whole blood. These latter, however, only took the share among the whole of them, to which their parent would have succeeded if alive.

8. Children of a brother of the whole blood were preferred to brothers and sisters of the half blood.

9. Among collaterals the privilege of representation was allowed to the sons and daughters of brothers and sisters, concurring in degree with uncles and aunts, but not further.

10. If the deceased left neither brothers nor sisters, nor the children of these, other collaterals were called, according to degree-the nearest in degree, being preferred: and if many of these stood in the same degree, the inheritance was divided according to the number of persons. This was division per capita.

11. All the estate of a deceased person, descended equally among his children of whatever sex.

12. If the estate descended in a direct line; or among collaterals taking by representation, where a person of equal degree with the person represented subsisted, these took the estate per stirpes. If all were called in their own right, the estate was taken per capita.

13. In computing degrees, the civil law counted from the

deceased upward to the common stock, and thence down to the party related.

We have thus hastily travelled over the ground occupied by the most prominent declarations of the civil law, and we are again impressed with a sense of the beautiful regularity of the system, and its adaptation to the rights and obligations of men, in a state of society. In the attempted sketch no effort has been made at original views. The writer acknowledges his obligations to those, who, with minds stored with the accumulated learning of centuries, have opened the way to this noble fountain head of the legal sciences. All he claims is the arrangement; one which, he trusts, will bring the subject to the intelligence of those, whose opportunities and time will not permit the deep investigation of which this branch of the law is fruitful. If sustained in this humble and brief effort, renewed exertions may be made of the same character, until some pen, capable of the task, shall present the American bar, with a connected view of Roman Jurisprudence, and the various subjects of its authority.*

ART. V.-A Classical Dictionary, &c. By CHARLES ANTHON, LL. D., Jay Professor of the Greek and Latin Languages in Columbia College, New-York, and Rector of the Grammar School. New-York: Harper & Brothers. 1841. 1 vol. 8vo.

PROFESSOR ANTHON has been for many years before the public, as an Editor of Classic Authors and a Compiler of School Books, intended to facilitate the acquisition of classical knowledge. His zeal and his industry have already won for him much praise; and his talents and learning entitle him to the high consideration of his countrymen, for he has been mainly instrumental in sustaining the reputation of American scholarship abroad. More brilliancy, and a greater variety of attainments may have been displayed by the present Attorney General of the United States and the two Everetts, but the steady and laborious perseverance of Dr. Anthon. in the one field to which he has devoted all his *See Note of the Editor, at the end of this number of the Review.

energies, has been productive of the most solid fruits. It is the intention of the Professor to complete the work at the head of our article, by the addition of an Archaeological Dictionary, already in the press, and it is probable that his reputation as a scholar will rest principally on this work, so completed, and his larger edition of Horace. This will be the case, unless he find leisure and inclination hereafter, to produce more works of a higher rank in literature than mere school-books. Let us not be thought to depreciate his labors in the compilation of the latter; they merit every commendation, and have tended materially to diffuse the first seeds of a correct classical taste through the land; but, valuable as they may be, an author does not derive his literary rank so much from the utility, as from the nature and execution of his works. Were it otherwise the inventor of the horn book might stand before Lindley Murray; Murray before Shakspeare, Milton, and Byron; and Schrevelius, or Ainsworth, or the Messieurs de Port Royal, might take precedence of Bentley, Porson, Wolfe and Hermann. It is, indeed, highly to Prof. Anthon's credit as a man, that he has been willing to forego the more tempting honors, that his learning and abilities would not have failed to attain, and to direct his energies to that quarter, where he deemed them capable of rendering the most essential service to literature. By so doing, he deserves honorable mention along with the great and good Bishop of London, C. J. Blomfield, who left his valuable edition of Eschylus unfinished, and abandoned the high throne he held in Greek Letters, to the great regret of all scholars, in order that he night devote his time to the humblest but most important duties of his diocese.

Of the two books we have mentioned, as likely to uphold Prof. Anthon's reputation for scholarship, the Horace has never received, in this country, that meed of attention and commendation which it well merits. Though it could hardly be said to have fallen still born from the press, yet there is no doubt that Dr. Anthon had ample cause for the complaint he made, in the preface to the smaller edition, that "the good fortunes of being brought to the bar of learned and intelligent criticism had been denied to its predecessor." The earlier edition appeared in the spring of 1830, and has accordingly been more than twelve years before the public, yet we question very much whether one out of ten, even of